Search This Blog

Tuesday, June 5, 2018

If you must know, my all time most viewed post is the Top Ten Annoying Types of Christians post from 2011. I figured it would be fun to turn the tables and critique some of the annoying kinds of atheists there are. Fair is fair, after all.

1.The Fanboy Athiests

These are the Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson (instert famous atheist here) die-hard fan-boy types that will defend every little thing said or done by their favorite celebrity atheist no matter how absurd or wrong. There's nothing they won't come to the defense of it it's their bro-atheist.

2.The Atheist + Atheists

A movement championed by Richard Carrier among others to make Atheism more inclusive. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But the way these A+ movers went about doing it was to burn all the bridges and slam anyone who disagreed with even one minute aspect of the movement's screed. It was left-leaning and very dogmatic in it's zeal for revolutionizing the New Atheism movement. Needless to say, it crashed and burned within a matter of months. Like the Spruce Goose, it just didn't have what it needed to keep itself in the air. But that doesn't mean there aren't A+ sympathizers still loitering about the Interwebs. They pop up once in a while to remind you of your folly for not believing exactly as they do.

3.The I'm Atheist But Don't Do Facts Type

These atheists proudly admit they don't believe in God, but then they turn around and espouse the benefits of supplements, crystal salt therapy, and acupuncture. Some even believe in ghosts! These atheists are into alternative therapies and believe they work, because unlike many atheists who come into atheism via a desire for more rational grounds for believing things, these atheists are just living life without facts. And they're content to continue to do so. Which makes them really annoying.

4.The Can't Stop Being an Anti-theist Prick Atheist

Understandably, many coming out of religion go through an unavoidable anger phase. It's inevitable. But after about a year of blogging and lashing out at the folly of religion, most atheists calm down or find a nice balance to their secular life. The types that really grate, however, are the ones that can't stop being angry and continue to attack religion with the same dogmatic zeal they exhibited when they were a believer. And this religious need to always attack religion makes them one side of a very ugly dogmatic coin, bringing them squarely onto the list of annoying types of atheists. My advice, get it out of your system, sure, but then take a chill pill.

5.The I Wannabe an Intellectual Too Type!

I hate to knock people's intelligence, as that's generally an ad hominem. But as with the Christian community, there are atheists who pretend to know more than they actually do. And they'll be the first to tell you. Which, I think you'll agree, makes them pretty dang annoying.

6.The Atheist who Doesn't Know the Difference Between Atheism and Agnostic type

If you don't know the difference between agnosticism and atheism, then you probably shouldn't be getting into arguments about the meaning of either. Yet, there are a handful of atheists who continue to conflate the two, or else dismiss agnosticism entirely, not realizing the nature of their mistake. Atheism deals with the *personal belief propositions of theism whereas agnosticism deals with what we can *know for certain regarding theistic claims; e.g. whether God exits, etc. There's room for both. I am, for example, an atheist due to my personal beliefs regarding my understanding of theism, but I am also agnostic because I am nearly certain I can't know with any certainty, given my current understanding, whether God exists or not. This makes me an agnostic-atheist. And that's fine. But thinking agnostics are scared atheists or to diminish the position in any other way reveals a lack of understanding on the critics part, making them rather annoying know-it-alls who don't know much of anything.

7. I'm Atheist But all Atheists are Crap Type

These atheists have had a rough go of it, and have found lots to dislike about the atheist movement, so have sworn off all atheism. Just for the fact they think they're better than all of the rest of us, they make the list.

8.The Chauvinistic Atheist

These are the horrific womanizing, women-accosting, women-bashing, women-molesting, predatory atheists and their asshole defenders. These are the atheists who wonder why more women atheists don't speak out or attend conventions but then slither into elevators at 2 AM and hit on unsuspecting women then get angry when they're rejected. These are also the atheists who defend these kinds of boundary crossing, disrespectful, predatory atheists by falsely crying "outrage culture" and "political correctness" fatigue, but then turn around and argue with all the women non-believers who are sharing their personal accounts of terrible atheist experiences within the community as though their opinions didn't matter because they were female. Yeah, fuck you pricks and your tiny dicks. Women atheists rule, and if you can't accept that fact, go fuck yourself.

9.The Devil's Advocate Atheist

Usually this is the one guy in a chat thread that constantly takes the side of the theist in an attempt to, in their estimation, elevate you to higher standard of truthfulness. Therefore, they challenge you on every little detail and ask you to share all your research. Not for the benefit of the theist you happen to be debating, but for your own good. Often times, you end up burning out because you're fending a gish gallop of questions from both sides. And when you finally do throw in the towel, they apologize and express their concerns for the discourse. After all, it's the thought that counts, right?

10.The 'I need money so bad I'll debate anyone' Atheist

Most atheists don't do the professional debate circuit, that's true. But some make a good living at it. However, some atheists might want to be more discerning in who they agree to debate. If you're just debating people who want to rile up audiences and use the platform -- and subsequently your atheist fame -- to blast their hate speech, then you're part of the problem. Hey, if you need the money that badly, I hear Starbucks is hiring. And, hey, they offer sensitivity training. Which will help you in the long run. At the very least it will prevent you from becoming the next Lawrence Kraus.

***

There are many more types I could name, and many of these areas are overlapping, but these are just the types of Atheists which bother me (personally) to no end. I should know—I am one.

Sunday, March 25, 2018

Recently, I stumbled across this inane meme (above). Not once. Not twice. But FIVE times on my various social media accounts. So, allow me to respond.

***

If social media existed when the Constitution was written then right to privacy laws would likely have been included in it. But that's why we have the 9th Amendment anyway, because it clarifies there are moral laws & rights that aren't included in the Constitution as it is not an exhaustive text.

That said, there's a difference between calling for a ban of a lethal weapon which was used to murder all your friends vs. calling for more rights.

One is a response to a problem and the desire not to be murdered by a lethal weapon, mainly a gun. Which is a real problem in America. Although fatal school shootings aren't on the rise compared to previous years, they still register a higher fatality rate than soldiers in active service. That says all you need to know about the gun problem via statistics.

Also, when it comes to "ownership" of weapons, freely giving up weapons to maintain civil and peaceful society is a form of progress. The most peaceful societies on the planet do not allow weapons. Of the few who do, their regulations far outstrip those of standard American systems. In societies like Finland, with high gun-ownership per capita, they are offset from the U.S. by having amazingly good universal socialized health care, including more than adequate care for mental illness, among low poverty and disenfranchisement rates among its citizens.

Basically, in America, angry and poor people without access to good mental health care are arming themselves. And a lot of this "their taking away my rights" paranoia has led to people doubling down on their desire to own something they don't inherently need for happiness or survival in the modern world.

Privacy is far more important than guns in the digital age, and if you don't see this then, by all means, feel free to go build a log cabin somewhere remote and live off-grid until you're able to partake in civil and polite society again. I mean, that's about the only real way you're going to be able to hold onto your guns *or privacy, for that matter* in the future. By waiting till the Feds show up to your front doorstep and pry them out of your hands.

But this just goes to show the crux of the gun problem isn't so much the proliferation of guns, although that is a symptom of bad gun policy. But the fact that so many people think they need to "own" guns when they are merely confusing the desire to maintain an unnecessary privilege with a right.

Yes, in 1789 a well-organized militia could fend off the United States military. It was not a robust military.

Yes, in 1861 the North and the South fought and you could have a need for self-defense in such a scenario as enemy soldiers tramping through your fields and property. But in today's world, the 2nd Amendment's intended purpose of overturning a corrupt government is impossible. A single drone strike would end any militia or insurrection and 'we the people' simply are underequipped to take on a state of the art military, regardless of how many guns we might have. I mean, they can literally kill you with a flight simulator. Game over, man.

And, even I admit, there could be valid reasons to have shotguns and rifles on farms and for hunting, but with much stricter gun access laws and in a limited capacity. And I'm not talking about mere regulations. But real restrictions. Like you have to prove you need the tool for its said purpose and obtain a special license for it. After all, they don't let just anyone use large commercial vehicles like heavy equipment and airliners. There are a whole slew of regulations and special licensing that is required to use such tools and machines. They're specialized. And in a way, so are weapons designed to kill.

So do I see Hogg's comments as hypocritical. No.

He's sayings these are separate issues about different kinds of rights. And we can either evolve our thinking on the issue or keep going around in circles because people don't want to relinquish a lethal tool designed for killing just because.

I know the standard fair whataboutism styled arguments. But what about cars? But what about hammers? What about all the crazy murderers who'll still resort to stoning you with rocks if they really want to kill you? Well, yes, life is a fragile thing and we can die from any numerous causes. Even eating too much cheese.

But, come one. Let's be adults here. Cars, hammers, and rocks were not deliberately designed with the function of killing others. That's a side effect of bad safety when using a device improperly. Guns are no different in that they can be extremely unsafe, except in the way of their standard function of killing is also extremely unsafe. And that sets them apart in a degree from, say, hammers and cars where hammers and cars are no different (i.e., their standard and proper function is non-lethal. Cars are for transportation and hammers are for construction. Guns are for killing).

And only in a non-rational debate would these self-evident truths about the true function and nature of a gun be so brazenly ignored.

As for the argument, well, 'bad-guys will still find a way to get guns' doesn't necessarily hold either. Because even if they do, it doesn't mean they'll use them. In Japan, for example, which has some of the strictest gun laws on the entire planet, the Yakuza (Japanese mafia) do in fact get guns. They typically shoot up each other, and very rarely turn their weapons on the public.

There's a very good reason for this.

When it comes to crime, it pays to stay off the radar of law enforcement. Because having an illegal gun in Japan is like waving a big red flag that says, "Arrest me! Arrest me! I'm up to no good!" And criminals tend to shy away from drawing too much attention to themselves just as a matter of habit. So, I've never bought into that argument that criminals everywhere would arm themselves and then turn their weapons on the public. It seems to be a kind of paranoid thinking that leads one to conclude that anyone you don't like who happens to get a gun will try and harm you with that gun, hence the need for more guns.

I think the usual rationalizations gun proponents use just don't hold up under rational scrutiny. I've considered them and thought about them for over a decade now and I haven't found one that relies on the inherent strength of a basic rational tenet that isn't propped up by whataboutisms and poor moral rationalizations that conveniently seem to ignore the stronger counter-arguments to the position. Like, literally disregard the arguments because they don't fall in line with the gun-mentality, to call it that. And that's a sign of dogmatism. Something that's dangerous whether or not guns are involved.

Kid President once said if your dream is stupid, get a better dream. I think that applies here too with the entire gun debate. It's not stupid for people to have the healthy desire not to become a victim of gun crime. What is stupid, in my opinion, is in the light of so much gun crime to think it's stupid for a person to want to ban guns out of their fear of guns rather than do the irrational thing -- which is to arm themselves with more guns -- of which they are afraid of being harmed by.

That's a very irrational response to not wanting to become a victim of a gun-related crime and or death. If you're afraid of dying by eating the sashimi of the poisonous puffer fish, you don't go on a raw puffer fish eating binge to counteract this very real fear and potential risk to your safety and life. That's entirely irrational. If you don't wish to die by poisonous fish, you simply avoid eating raw puffer fish at all costs. Problem solved.

And yet, there are at least 6 deaths a year from eating raw poisoned fish meat. So, when I see people claiming more guns will solve our gun problem, this is what I think of. It's the ole puffer fish excuse. It's just a bit irrational.

(Coincidentally enough, the rate of gun death in Japan is equivalent to the rate of death by the consumption of poisoned fish. So, scaling up the analogy to 300 million American gun owners should show you the absurdity of the gun rationale. Just saying.)

Being a gun culture simply for the masturbatory lust for guns is a stupid dream. Let's all grow up and realize that the value of life should outstrip the value of ownership of lethal weapons. We don't let people carry around vials of lethal poison just because they feel it's their right to do so. That's insanity. Why should it be any different with guns?

Really, the only real moral argument for owning a gun is to safeguard oneself from a present and imminent harm. Something that is threatening one's life and the life of their loved ones. But, in America, in many cases this threat is simply another person with a gun. Think about that for a moment. Then, you'll see the solution to ending this threat is quite simple.

Thursday, November 9, 2017

I came to Japan in my mid-twenties and started my career as an English teaching professional teaching TESOL to Japanese students at elementary and Junior high school.

One of the first experiences any foreign teacher has the privilege of experiencing in Japan is the infamous "kancho."

It's basically a physical gag where a school child will sneak up behind you and wait till you bend over to wash your hands or drink from the drinking fountain, and then, placing their hands together, their index fingers pointed toward your nether regions like a gun--they jam their fingers into your anus with as much force as possible.

Many foreigners yelp out in shock at the first time small probing fingers try to enter their asshole. If you're a guy, sometimes the little kids miss and mash your balls, which really smarts. If you're a girl, sometimes they hit you right in the glory hole. Either way, none are immune to this childish prank.

During my first week in Japanese public schools, I got kancho-ed no less than seven times. Each time I felt myself getting angrier and angrier. I eventually complained to the vice principal of the school who informed me it's simply something children do.

When in Rome, I thought to myself. And sure enough, the antics of the school children blew over once they got to know me. As a matter of fact, I later found out that many school kids do this to new teachers to "test" them and see how they'll react. And being a foreigner in a strange land, I knew that they were taking advantage of the situation. But this isn't a case of sexual harassment since, in most cases, school kids six and seven years old aren't even aware of what sexual harassment is. To them, it's just a silly prank.

What came as a rather big shock to me, however, was when my 14 and 15 year old junior high school students did the same thing my first few weeks of school.

Again, as a new teacher, I got the sense they were testing me. But the guys also liked to swat at my balls in the bathroom when I was taking a pee--as a joke. And if you've ever listened to pubescent teenagers of 15 talk, you know they are all entering their hormonal stage where everything becomes about sex for them.

After my second year teaching, several of my third year students (the equivalent of freshman in high school) decided to play a naughty prank on me.

As it turned out, I achieved the thing I was aiming for--familiarity with my students. I went through great trouble to learn each and every one of the names of my graduating students. I wanted them to like me and think of me as a cool, hip teacher. And to that effect, I succeeded. Also, being the token foreigner amongst an all Japanese staff, many of the students would approach me with questions asking about the difference between their culture and mine.

I was always happy to answer such questions except when they were sexually explicit and entirely inappropriate.

Once a boy student asked me, "Are Japanese girls' pussies tighter than American girls' pussies?"

I was taken aback by the bluntness of the question. I merely replied to him in Japanese, "I can't talk about such things at school. It's not appropriate."

He laughed and wandered off with his friends. Another time, a different boy student asked me how big my penis was and if he could see it. I didn't know whether to be flattered or traumatized.

I politely apologized, as is custom in Japan, and informed him it wasn't appropriate to talk about such things and shrugged it off and went about my week.

But the more familiar my boy students became with me as their teacher the more emboldened they got and, soon enough, began asking me all kinds of lewd questions.

Granted, they were curious and I was technically the only one who could answer such questions about the "cultural" differences they were interested in, except for the fact that it would have been entirely inappropriate. So, as always, I deflected their questions or did my best to change the subject to something that would hold their attention--such as sports.

As the boys kept me preoccupied, I never saw the real threat of the girls--who were equally curious and perhaps a little more aware of their own sexual maturity. Whereas with the boys it was just a game, the girls approached their sexuality in a more up front sort of way. A way which snuck up on me. Quite literally speaking.

In Japan, the students all have a cleaning hour at the end of the day. They all work together to clean their school. Which is why Japanese schools don't have janitors.

One day while cleaning, a couple of girl students of mine rushed over to tell me that their friend had fallen down and hurt her knee. They were adamant that I should come right away. Worried that a student of mine was actually in trouble, I followed them to the stairwell.

One of the girls pointed to the dark area behind the staircase, which was merely a storage area, and stepped to the side as I leaned in to see what the matter was. Without warning, from behind, both girls shoved me into the nook behind the stairs.

I reached out as I fell forward and my hands mashed into something soft. When I looked up I found one of my girl students, her shirt and bra pulled up over her chest, laying under me as she stared up at me with brown eyes and flushed cheeks.

I looked down to find my hands firmly pressed upon her small budding breasts and I quickly recoiled, pulling my hands away. But as I tried to clamor to my feet, the two girls behind me leaned into my back, practically hopping on me piggy-back style and forced me back down onto the third girl.

I caught myself with my hands, my face hovering dangerously close to the third girl's face. As she looked up at me, she asked me in a deliberately sensual tone, "Do you like me, Mr. Vick?"

One of the girls from behind said in a loud voice, "Mr. Vick, please touch my breasts next!"

The other girl from behind quipped, "I want him to touch me someplace else."

All three girls snickered and giggled excitedly. I remember one even snorted and that made them laugh all the more.

Angered, I pushed myself up and shoved the two girls behind me out of my way. I retreated to the hallway when, turning to the right, I saw Kanda sensei making his way toward us.

I knew that if he caught wind of anything that had just transpired, I could get in huge trouble. I might even lose my job. And the girl students, for their crime of adolescent naivete and sexually immature antics, could get expelled.

Flustered, I didn't know what to do. My heart raced with nervous embarrassment and fear gripped me. I remember panic set in and I began to have trouble breathing.

Meanwhile, the girl beneath the stairwell pulled down her clothes and casually stepped out into the hall with us. All the girls turned as Kanda sensei approached and when he saw them giggling he ordered them to get back to cleaning. Without even batting an eye they took off, giggling amongst themselves down the entirety of the school corridor.

Seeing that I was without a broom, Kanda sensei opened the broom closet underneath the stairwell and handed me a bristle broom. I thanked him and moved on. He immediately turned to see boys throwing rocks at each other outside and rushed out to chastise them and order them to get back to cleaning.

As I stood in the hallway, sweeping the same spot over and over again, I tried to wrap my brain around what had just happened. Of course, I never mentioned it to anybody. I was too scared.

I knew that if I came clean with what had actually happened the girls could team up against me and lie about what had occurred, claiming that I attacked them and molested them. I knew they were all close friends and so would protect each other--if push came to shove--and being minors I could lose my job.

And even if it was deemed that it wasn't my fault--that I merely was a victim to their adolescent antics, at the very least it cast suspicion on me as a potential sexual predator. Which was practically just as bad as actually being falsely accused as one. Because then everyone would be wondering whether the rumors were true and this would give rise to new rumors--none of them bound to be good.

At the same time, I didn't want the girls to be unfairly disciplined, and from my short time in Japan I had seen first-hand how harsh some of the school's punishments were for things that, by my American standards, were trivial non-offenses. I didn't want to get them suspended from school for a one-time offense. Moreover, I didn't want my relationship with my students to become strained to the point where they didn't feel like they could trust me or be themselves around me.

So, I did the only thing I could do. I kept it to myself.

Was it the right thing to do? I think so.

I couldn't change what had happened. But at least I had some small control over what happened next.

I went the rest of the year without another incident. If it would have continued, I would have certainly mentioned it. But instead, the girls just blew me kissy faces, batted their eyes at me, and giggled the rest of the year long. They were only teasing.

But, in retrospect, I think their big prank was perhaps a little too much. And because it was overly sexual and placed me in an awkward and potentially problematic situation, I sometimes grow anxious whenever the memory should resurface. Which is why I have never talked about it till now.

That said, this account showcases only a mild case of sexual harassment. These students all acted out of innocent ignorance and out of a sense of fun and wanting to get to know me better. And, as the saying goes, no harm no foul.

In fact, all three girls stay in touch with me to this day. And if that should sound weird, consider that they're all college graduates now, and are the age I was when I first taught them (25). Two of them are married with children and they send me pictures of their families and tell me that whenever they get together they reminisce about the good old days and tell me they always talk about how I was such a fun teacher for them.

Sexual harassment is a sensitive subject matter because it's also a highly personal subject matter--and because people will undoubtedly respond differently to it. Most assuredly, there are cases far more severe and damaging than what I experienced, so please don't feel sorry for me. Everything worked out well enough in the end. Nobody was hurt by it, other than a bit of awkwardness it may have caused me.

Needless to say, I was on my guard around young adolescent people from there on in, and I most certainly never followed students blindly into dark corners of the school ever again.

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Over the past 10 years, I’ve developed the concept of ignosticism into a formal demonstration that can either prove or disprove the existence of God.

In a nutshell, ignosticism asks you to describe “God.”

Simple enough, right? It’s not as easy as it sounds.

When a person says they have a belief in God, what is it they mean by "God"?

One might say God is three in one. Another might say none is greater than God.

Both are fine definitions.

The problem arises when competing definitions for the same God negate each other.

Three is not one.

So, what is it we are talking about? How can we talk about a self-negating concept? It’s nonsensical. We can’t speak meaningfully of it.

Hence, the ignostic holds religious people tend to presume too much about God.

The description part is to test the coherence of the object being described. Many theological descriptions of God are sophisticated but incoherent.

So, what is it we are talking about? How can we talk about an incoherent concept? It’s nonsensical. We can’t speak meaningfully of it.

Hence, the ignostic holds religious people must provide a meaningful description of God before the topic of God can carry any real meaning, regardless of the meaning they imbue their concept with before offering a demonstration.

Unable to do this, the term God is rendered meaningless and so irrelevant.

Most theological demonstrations of God's existence or attributes are logical conceptualizations, but they often fall apart when compared to competing demonstrations which change the description of God.

The key is finding religious templates that are logical and internally coherent.

Once we have these we can test the descriptions against the referent—whether tangible or conceptual.

A tangible referent would be the physical thing itself, like an apple. A conceptual referent would be something like Democracy or Capitalism. They are concepts, but they work and they function and can be measured and have an observable effect on the societies that adopt them.

Now ignosticism is only designed to determine the immediate relevance of your description. Unable to describe God in any meaningful way undermines one’s belief in God by demonstrating that God isn’t worth discussing because the concept of God (as provided by the person of faith) is meaningless.

I take it one step further by asking one to provide a justification of their description (I call this step a Referential Justification).

There are three parts to this:

1) Provide a comprehensible description (comprehensible so as to be meaningful)

2) provide a referential justification—the thing itself or a defeasible concept—for said description (otherwise it gets classified as an unreal conceptualization)

3) determine if your description is accurate by comparing it to the description of an impartial 3rd party (otherwise go back to square one).

Easy enough, right?

You’d be surprised

Referential Justification is designed to help us justify our terms by showing they mean what we think they mean.

This is part of the area of English theory known as semantics--better known as the study of the meaning of words and how they come to acquire their meanings.

And this relates in an important way back to epistemology, the study of knowledge and how we know what we know. Because, when you think about the standard phrases the devout typically use when talking about God is it usually something like "I know God exists," and "God is real" the question arises, how do they know?

Saying that "God exists" may be faith-based propositions, sure. But it's also a truth claim. And taking such a belief for granted doesn't prove the belief is true, even if one believes with all their heart they are.

All my advancement of ignosticism seeks to do is justify these claims as true.

And that would be a big win for the believer!

It provides a powerful tool to justify one's terms so we can understand they are speaking about true and real things, and thereby avoid the ignostic's criticism that a person of faith's God-talk is meaningless.

So it is to the benefit of the believer that they should always apply a Referential Justification to their terminology so as to not run into any semantic problems where the words they are using actually don't describe what they are talking about. Because this is where the underlying confusion lies--if the definition of "God" doesn't mean what they think it means or it means something else entirely, then they cannot presume to know God is real or that God exists, because the term has no inherent meaning and so no value in the discussion.

This, of course, means we're dealing with a higher order of specificity than people are typically accustomed to using when they talk about broad concepts. It means, if we are going to make the specific claim that something is real and that it has certain properties, then we must be expected to show the work.

Show the relationship between your claim and the description you want others to accept as valid so that we know you're not assuming more than you can possibly know about the thing you are talking about.

Basically, it's a way to check if someone is haphazardly fabricating their ideas or else actually offering us a real description of something in a way we can talk about meaningfully.

I probably should have known better than to get embroiled in a stupid Facebook argument with conservative Trump supporters. Trying to explain to them how Mike Pence as VP, an elected official of the Republic, represents all American citizens and not just conservative Americans was, predictably, all in vain.

It is inconceivable to me that the VP can pull a stunt like this and not get ousted from office. It's a complete overreach of the VP's power, not only because he's using the White House and taxpayer dollars to send a message as Mike Pence the VP (not Mike Pence the citizen), not only is his protest of peaceful protesters a denial of their message and what they're protesting in the first place (if he even is aware of what that is), but his staged Diva walk-out, when we know (for a fact) that he was scheduled to be in a different state that same day anyway and so had no intention of watching the game, is such a slight against American values as to be utterly grotesque.

If you missed why his walk-out was unconscionable it simply is this: As VP he has no right to silence the voice of Americans. He's supposed to represent those Americans, regardless of what his personal position might be with respect to their form of protest. This is intimidation plain and simple. And that's WRONG on every level.

But pointing this out caused me to get blocked by three people, told to shut up by two, and about a dozen others chanted variations on...but...but...but...don't disrespect the flag! Others were sure to mention all Pence did was peacefully walk out--how could I be mad at his peaceful protest of their peaceful protest?

BECAUSE he's the Vice President of the United States! Did you not know this? Are you not aware of the power dynamics at play here? How dense do you have to be not to get it?

If you were wondering how bad it is in America...it's this bad, folks. The VP literally protested the First Amendment act of peacefully protesting by protesting the protesters.

He said something to the effect that he was protesting the manner in which they were protesting, but this is the same difference. Clearly, he hasn't the faintest idea of what the protesters' message is. Probably because like all those who think it's a flag issue miss the point of why the protest is bothering them so much. Hint: It's not a flag issue.

It's not even a respect issue. It has nothing to do with one's level of patriotism. It's a status quo issue.

The protesters are saying that there is a segment of the American population that's not being treated fairly and that until this happens, they are taking a knee. The so-called disrespect is deliberate! It's to get you to wake the fuck up and pay attention to their message--we're not being respected so we offer this reflection of the daily disrespect that we as people of color receive.

And if you think it ain't so, look no further than to our own city streets where Nazis and white supremacists have been marching about with torches. And what do they protest? Their loss of privilege. Not exactly a slight against them as a people. Just an effect of a society becoming more inclusive.

You may feel kneeling before Old Glory is offensive, but have you forgotten the flying of Nazi flags on American soil just weeks earlier? How many of those inbred Nazi-wannabe fucks have you told to get out of America since then? Or have you sheltered them from due criticism and given them safe passage in the marketplace of ideas, claiming they have a right to free speech just like everyone else?

When these same Nazis / White Supremacists took an innocent woman’s life, shot at black people in an open crowd, and spewed racial slurs and bigoted hate at anyone not as white as they--where was your outrage then?

And when people of color say this offends us, so we'll take a knee as a peaceful sign of the slights we've received, of the insults and slights we’ve endured, and you grow outraged, well, I think you might be missing the fucking point.

It was never really was about the flag. It's about fighting a class-war where the opposition’s message isn't at all a peaceful one--but actively calls for the extermination of and continued abuse of people of color.

What a fucking message, eh?

And this brings us back to Mike Pence and his Diva walk-out. Like so many others, he's clearly missed the message. Like the others, he’s crying about his hurt feelings, ignoring the issues behind the protest.

This is a form of Whitewashing minority issues because many white folks, if you haven't guessed, don't believe minorities and people of color are treated differently in America. Not enough to be a problem. It's just the "liberal media," they say. They think it's all made up. And they balk when you talk of police brutality, of unfair incarceration, and of economic disenfranchisement. Racism isn't a problem here, they say--as Nazi's continue to convene in their squares and march in their streets. It's a matter of having pride for the country that's given you so much.

Talk about a HUGE misdirect! And do you know what the best way to get through to these knot-heads is? You guessed it...by taking a knee.

If you really are offended by the protesters' message or their act of taking a knee, I can only offer this advice: GET OVER YOURSELF. It's not about you or your delicate, bleeding heart, snowflake feelings.

Newsflash! You're not that important. Your small slight of having to see someone take a knee pales in comparison to the slight minorities and people of color feel every day at the unfairness that is built into our undeniably racist culture. And the only way to claim the culture isn't as racist as everyone has been telling you it is is to demonstrate to everyone that your country doesn't actually have Nazis and White Supremacists marching in your streets.

No? Well, then. Don't say I didn't tell you so.

Kneeling during the national anthem shouldn't be any kind of grounds to determine a fellow American’s true level of patriotism. It's certainly no grounds to find reason enough to prevent them from exercising their first amendment rights. It's not even grounds to ask them to leave--even if you are incensed.

You don't need to agree with the protesters' message, although I'll certainly question your lack of empathy. You don't need to like it though, that's your right. And you certainly don't need to call them un-American or tell them they should get out of your country. That's jingoism. That’s the same as using the flag as a tissue for your great big patriotic circle jerks. It's disrespectful to your fellow Americans and to your country. It merely seeks to diminish their status as Americans. If they're not patriots, they're FAKE Americans, so what do they matter? Right?

It's far worse when the Vice President does it. I can assure you.

It's disheartening for sure. I've never felt so bad for America in all my life. And by "bad" I mean terribly embarrassed.

What's more, it just goes to show we CANNOT possibly begin to make America great again until we change the QUALITY of Americans in America.

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Pointing out that Monogamous marriage has the highest divorce rate of any marriage model is merely an incontrovertible fact.

You may not like it, but it's true.

It also suggests that maybe (maybe!) we shouldn't make monogamy the golden standard by which we value ours (or any other) relationships by and that perhaps (perhaps!) we shouldn't practice it at all (just a logical inference! Don't kill the messenger).

Of course, if you want to be monogamous or are happily monogamous, that's fine. But there's nothing in human biology to suggest humans are truly monogamous or that monogamy is natural to us as a species. Our pair bonds are dependent on proximity and familiarity and do not share the permanent pair bonds that voles or ravens create. We are semi-monogamous, you might say. Kayt Sukel's research into this is quite revealing.

Other problems with monogamy are that it arose out of patriarchal marriage customs where women were bought as chattel, and marriage was about heredity and status, not love.

If you're at all a feminist or care about women, this should be a big deal. While other marriage models do exist around the world, the dominant one is the Christian form of monogamous marriage, which arose out of the sentiment that women were property and flourished under Western patriarchy and was then exported to every corner of the world.

Some might argue that holy matrimony makes a husband and wife one body and one mind. That by the grace of God, their holy union makes the wife the husband's equal. This is trite nonsense and superstition.

The woman was never the lesser of the two. It's only under such an oppressive ideology that monogamous marriage could ever seem appealing in the first place. First, you need one gender to be demonized and oppressed and then (and only then) the promise salvation in the form of marriage to a man seems as all palatable. But no decent, thinking, human being could ever believe this was the best system of partnering with someone. Let alone as an expression of love! Bleh.

And just because it is ubiquitous doesn't make it the best. And we can know this for a fact. How?

Modern marriage / relationship models are hardly ever based on monogamy, and that's rather telling. Wouldn't you say?

Concepts like open marriage and polyamory pay attention to both partner's needs, consider their equal commitment beneficial to the relationship but not the sole pillar of it, open up a safe space for dialog when one's adherence or values regarding monogamy shift, and never sets your cherished partner into diametrically opposed philosophical or moral opposition because of it.

Where as monogamy is designed to breed conflict and stress when one persons adherence or values regarding monogamy shifts, and it only considers he/she who adheres to its principles with blind devotion to be the valuable commodity in the relationship as it is the only pillar holding up the entire relationship, and holds both couples hostage to its principles even if one or the other should fall out of love--thereby villainizing them for a moral failure--is enough to make anyone who truly thinks monogamy is a good idea seem completely delusional.

Of course, it doesn't mean they are, in point of fact, delusional. They might find other value in their adherence to monogamy I am unaware of. Monogamy may actually work for them because they are both more monogamous than not. But there's no reason their standard ought to be everyone else's standard. What works for them might not necessarily work for somebody else.

But as far as a viable concept, monogamy is riddled with inexorable problems and is neither practical or pragmatic as far as human beings go and the types of varied relationships we are capable of sharing with one another.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Let's imagine... you had a book that said it's perfectly fine to shit where you eat.

And because of your devotion to this book, you formed a belief early on that it was perfectly all right to shit where you eat. And this you treated as a sacred truth.

After all, your parents always shat where they ate. They taught you it was okay. Moreover, everyone in your community shits where they eat. And when they come over to your house, they love to shit where you eat too--and so do you!

Then, one day you mature into adulthood and go out into the world to learn the ways of your fellow mankind. And you visit a distant land and the people there are friendly and welcome you with open arms and smiling faces.

Then, that evening, while breaking bread with them, you climb up onto the dinner table, drop trou, and shit right in the middle of the dinner table. Right beside the roasted chicken and mashed potatoes. You drop a big, steaming, duce.

To your dismay, everyone is appalled by this! Repulsed even. And unmistakenly disgusted by your crude, uncouth, and foul behavior.

And your only defense is to say... "B-but it's okay. See? For I have it written here in my holy book that it is perfectly fine to shit where I eat! And what's more, that it should be desired!"

Yet everyone with half a working brain knows that's not how it works. The majority of the real world doesn't shit where they eat, nor would they want you to. And they have good reasons and real world evidence for why this is so. Reasons like its unsanitary and spreads disease. That it's gross, polluted, and invoke undesirable physiologic reactions. All this is evidently laid out, unlike the claims of your fairy tale book which merely makes unfounded and unwarranted claims that are either in bad taste or simply goes against basic common sense, if not both.

Your fairy book may say "Religion of Peace," but everyone really knows the truth. It's just shitting where you eat.

And when you shit where other people eat, well, then those people have a right to ask you to leave.

But please, for all the is sane and good in the world, don't go and act shocked when people call you foul, disgusting, and grotesque. Because that's exactly what you are when you shit where you eat. Pretending it's not, because of beliefs, is simply to be disillusioned about the way oxymorons work.

If you say it's a "religion of peace" for example, but the religion only seems to generate violent and intolerant behavior, then it's not a religion of peace. It's the opposite.

And let's drop the excuses. If it were a few bad eggs, well, they'd be dealt with and fade away into the obscurity of time. It wouldn't be a weekly, monthly, year after year event...whereby the only thing that seems to be true is your inability to believe that shitting where you eat is a bad thing.